Naomi Desinor v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 3, 2025
• Docket: 3D2023-1926
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 3, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1926 Lower Tribunal No. 21-27743 ________________

Naomi Desinor, et al., Appellants,

vs.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.

Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Annabel C. Majewski, for appellants.

Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., and Lara J. Edelstein and Drew W. Peeler (Boca Raton), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Naomi Desinor and David A. Joseph (the “Insureds”), appeal a final judgment rendered after the trial court granted summary

judgment in favor of appellee, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.

Upon careful de novo review of the record, we determine that the trial court

made improper credibility determinations regarding the Insureds’ expert

witness’ testimony. See Vega v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 326 So. 3d 176, 181

(Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“[Plaintiff's] Expert’s conclusions based on his

experience and review of the record in combination with [Plaintiff's]

deposition testimony . . . were sufficient to create a genuine issue of material

fact. Thus, summary judgment was inappropriate at this juncture of the

proceedings.”); Ortega v. JW Marriott Inv., LLC, 405 So. 3d 473, 477–78

(Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the

evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury

functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary

judgment or for a directed verdict.” (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986))).

Further, the record evidence presents sufficient factual dispute to

conclude that the Insureds met their burden to show the existence of a triable

issue as to the cause of loss, at least as to some of their damages. See

Frederick v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 314 So. 3d 539, 540 (Fla. 3d DCA

2020) (finding conflicting expert affidavits as to cause of loss created

2 sufficient triable issues precluding summary judgment); Garcia v. First Cmty.

Ins. Co., 241 So. 3d 254, 257−58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (holding summary

judgment inappropriate where findings of insurer’s expert and conclusions of

insured's expert were “clearly at odds”); see also Ortega v. Citizens Prop.

Ins. Corp., 257 So. 3d 1171, 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (finding homeowner's

counterevidence sufficient to create disputed issues of material fact).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Reversed and remanded.